The Downward Spiral to a Wife Spanking Cult

 There's a lot going on in the Twitterverse, or X.

Doug Wilson is in a negative spotlight, again. No surprise.

But, anyway as I'm watching this unfold, I came across a link to these two Podcasts from a woman who escaped from a wife spanking/domestic discipline cult. I am listening to Part 1.

Shiny Happy Wife: Tia Levings on Christian Fundamentalism (Part 1)

Shiny Happy Wife: Tia Levings on Christian Fundamentalism (Part 2)

I'm leaving this here so I can refer back to these.

Also, this Podcast channel has a lot of other cool things to look at and I'll be able to get back there through this post.

A Little Bit Culty.

I hope Doug Wilson is exposed for what he is. He's awful and Evangelicals need to stop taking him seriously.

A Couple More Important Thoughts on TGC Doctrine Problem

 I really like this one from someone I've never read before or even heard of, Beth Felker Jones:

Protestant bodies, Protestant bedrooms

This next one is from Scot McKnight. I have heard of him before, but not read much from him:

Social Media Speaks

Then of course there is some coverage by Julie Roys reporting team:

TGC Issues an Apology

Finally, The Wartburg Watch had a bit on it:

The Controversy Over Josh Butler

I may add more to this link page. Or not. We'll see.

"The God of Authority Must Have Sacrifices"

The title above is a quote from a comment stream over at The Wartburg Watch.

It was said by a commenter identified as Gram3.

Then a second commenter said further.

Gram3 wrote: The god of Authority must have sacrifices.

Max continues along those lines: New Calvinist young women are lining up across America like robots to offer themselves to their god. I don’t think Paul meant that when he wrote “Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God–this is your true and proper worship” (Rom 12:1). These poor girls cannot exercise their spiritual gifts, offering them back to the Father as a sacrifice, in a patriarchal system of belief and practice. Sad.

The comment can be found here: LINK

Why are they talking this way? You will know better if you read the article itself: Jessica Fore, a Victim of Domestic Violence, Is Indicated By the Presbyterian Church of America for Contempt Toward the Church and It's Leaders.

The situation is disgusting. The church elders have acted shamefully and continue in their pride and folly.

Piper's Poem Problems

Yes, I read it. No, I couldn't get past the first scene in the video, though I may try again some other time. I was turned off by the fact that Calvinism is for a lot of young white men, a few older white men and then pretty much nobody else, including all women who, though they receive a title and mention of high praise, they really are nothing to the Calvinist but a parable. I'm a person. Not a parable.

That aside, two others have written on this self-absorbed and self-obsessed poem that put a lot more thought into what is really wrong with it than what I could get into. Hey, I'm tired of being marginalized by John Piper and his ilk. Analyzing his dismissive tone towards me and all women is not what I would call a good use of my time. But I don't mind reading other musings on Piper's pathetic pontifications, a poem that is an assault on both poetry and any doctrine not whoring after Calvinism.

Update: The Self-obsessed Calvinist

And

John Piper's WAMM Calvinist (White American Middle-class Male)

Hero Mom

Move over Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Found this link on Thatmom. And I agree with her. This is my kind of mom.

Dorothy Baker, Punches and Runs Over Man Who Threatened Her and Her Kids.

And why do I bring this up?

Because I am soooooooooo tired of the John Pipers and Mark Driscolls and Tim Challieses*** of the world who hold up their ridiculous ideals of womanhood as soft and weak. I get tired of these men who think women can't defend themselves and must always be defended by a man.

Well, what do you do if there is no man to defend you, and in fact, the one man in the whole story is the one threatening you and your children.

I guess you are just supposed to put tilt your head back, put the back of your hand to your forehead and say, "Woe is me. God made me a soft, weak, defenseless female. Therefore I must submit to the all-powerful male in every situation. After all, this is what my clueless, misogynic, neo-Calvinist preacher has taught me. He has declared unto me that this is God's intention, will, role, and purpose for my life. To deviate from it would be to sin against the essence of manhood and womanhood and by so doing, rebel against the Gospel. Did I say, 'Woe is me'?"

(Forgive the snark. Please understand that it is better for me to do this than to cuss clueless preachers out on what is supposed to be a Christian blog. But believe me, they deserve to be cussed out or snarked out when they teach the crap they do and call it the Word of God.)

(Tim Challies is author of the infamous "Soft, Effeminate Christianity" post I wrote against some time back.)

Neo-Reform Leaders Need to Man-Up

At least that is what one commenter said on the Wartburg Watch.

In fact I liked Dana's comment so well, I think I'll post it here. Hope Dana doesn't mind.

"The NeoRefomed leaders need to “man up” and follow Wendy since she is the first example of manly leadership from that camp. She said what needed to be said in exactly the right way with the right tone. I often thank God for Wendy Alsup. May she prosper and flourish and be strengthened in every way."

Comment found here Link.

The Wendy that Dana is referring to is one of the few Complementarians in my blog list. She writes at Practical Theology for women. She's on my list because she actually cares about justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23)
Here is her post that needs more than 29 comments (at the time of this post):

The Elephant in Our Own Backyard

I agree with Dana. Wendy is the first example of manly leadership that we see from this camp. The men ignoring the tears of the abused children of SGM should be ashamed of themselves.

If there is any hope for the Neo-Reformed camp, it lies with their women. Too bad the best known leaders among them are working so damn hard to marginalize them and put them down and searching out scripture for new ways to lord over them.

The Calvinist Deceptive Take Over of a Church.

Interesting discussion of Calvinism continuing on The Wartburg Watch.

Commenter Anon 1 has posted references to something called "Quiet Revolution" which is, well, interesting.

Anon 1 on "Quiet Revolution"


Very Interesting

Argo on Neo Calvinism

As I mentioned to Argo, full understanding of Neo Calvinism still defies me though I understand it better this year than last year. But while commenting on The Wartburg Watch,  I asked Argo to please "nutshell" for me the root cause of abuses in the Neo Calvinist movement which Argo has done.

In order to keep track of his comment I'm going to both link and cut and paste it here.

Mara,
Well, in a word: sure. The whole of Calvinisms despotism can be boiled down to this fact: every core assumption is designed to separate man (men and women) from himself. You are either ruled by your “sinful nature” or you are ruled by the inexorable “irresistible grace” of God. Holding all of this together is the false understanding of God’s sovereignty. Meaning God ultimately controls ALL things, which makes Him the functional author of all the good and evil you do. Which is certainly a tacit admission that God causes evil; but worse than that, and more to the actual truth of the matter, is that this leads the faith inevitably to a place of moral relativism. For two reasons. One: if God controls all things then even things that are ostensibly “evil” are God’s will. Two: if man is indeed wholly depraved, utterly wicked apart from God, then man’s morality ends with his PERSON. And this is important. IF the whole of man is evil then his “sin” is his very existence. Not only does this assumption lead to abuse for obvious reasons, but it equates fully man’s morality the same “perfection” as God’s. You end up with a disturbing gnostic dualism of sorts. God is ALL good, man is ALL evil leaves no arbiter between the two. There is no objective morality that IS the pure and perfect standard. In short, God’s good and man’s evil become mirror images of each other. This is hard to understand I know, but if we understand that man’s person (the human) is fundamentally GOOD, then the dualism is IN MAN (his sinful choices juxtaposed with his righteous human worth, as Paul states in Romans) and the perfect standard of morality is God. Now, they will say they believe this, but they do not. Calvinism’s false doctrine will never suffer the idea that there is ANY good or worth in man. And this is precisely why they cannot truly love, and why the doctrine is inherently abusive.

The authoritative source on this is the Bible, of course. But dump the reformed premises. Focus on how what you are reading actually correlates with REALITY. Focus on how Jesus interacted with “sinners”. What do you think His assumptions were regarding the fundamental worth of humans? And pray for wisdom. God will give you truth.

Direct Link to Argo's comment

All my visitors are free to make comments here, agreeing or disagreeing.
I just count Argo's comment as another step on this strange road of understanding New Calvinism.

Thanks Argo

Seattle Slavery Pushing

Okay, before I get into the meat of this I want to apologize to Nick Bulbeck and all others for any trouble they have on commenting on my blog. I could switch over to Wordpress, but unfortunately I'm a creature of habit and convenience due to the hectic nature of my off-line life.
I also apologize to Nick if the title above is too inflammatory and takes his observations a bit too far. In debating Driscollites (those who defend Driscoll) I have learned that they like inflammatory. That's why they like Driscoll. And in fact, they cannot even hear you if you do not speak as boldly and blatantly as their Idol. If you speak in a more gracious tone, they just think you are a ________ (insert degrading term in reference to the feminine that means you are not masculine enough for them to take seriously)

Anyone who has visited here very often knows that I have issues with a certain famous preacher in Seattle. Yes, I know that none of us are perfect and that none of us have full comprehension of all Truth. But the combination of perversion, popularity, and hypocrisy from Washington holds a special place of "WTH???!!!" [What The Heck, not Wenatchee the Hatchet ;) ] in my world. The Seattle Spin, that song and dance that confuses us and keeps us in a perpetual state of "WTH?!", is better understood, dissected and debunked from different perspectives.

Speaking of WTH (Wenatchee the Hatchet, this time) and different perspectives, I had a wonderful guess series by him concerning Driscoll and his teaching on the Song of Solomon back in October. WTH comes at Driscoll's SoS series from a unique perspective and clarity that I appreciate. Anyone who missed it will find the first installment here:
WTH on Driscoll's SoS, Intro and part 1

Well, through WTH I have become acquainted with Nick Bulbeck who has been quoted here twice and is about to be quoted a third time. Nick also comes at the Driscoll Spin Machine from a different perspective, one that I'm learning to appreciate more and more. Here is his most recent comment under "A Surprise Comment Made My Day":

"The frustration we share at the neo-calvinists, or whatever one cares to label them, may stem from something that runs very deep in us. Consider the truth that has become labelled as "Penal Substitutionary Atonement", or "PSA". Behind the academic label are some astounding implications: God almighty emptied himself, became as nothing, and faced death at the hands of his enemies in order to make them his sons and daughters. There's an old English hymn, My Song is Love Unknown, that puts it thus:
"... a murderer they save,
The Prince of Life they slay;
Yet, cheerful, He to suffering goes,
That He His foes from thence might free."

"If my understanding of this jaw-dropping truth moves me to worship; if it opens my mouth, but leaves me silent because I can't escape the realisation that I cannot possibly describe what I've just seen... then and only then have I truly understood it.

"But... if my adherence to "PSA" moves me to self-righteousness and pride, and I use it as an empty shibboleth to prove I'm more doctrinally sound than the next person, then I've understood nothing, but am deceived and blind. My "good doctrine" is, to paraphrase Proverbs 11:22, just a gold ring in a pig's snout.

"Proverbs 19:10 talks about a slave ruling over princes. The Seattle-based preacher under discussion here teaches legalism, rules, and justification by doctrine; that's slavery, but he has managed to get himself into a position of very high influence and authority. If he were just an immature high-school jock sounding off in the corner of a church somewhere because he'd only just become a believer and didn't know any better, that would be one thing. But it isn't so. He is judging and lecturing wiser believers - men and women - from whom he should be humbly learning. A slave ruling over princes; and it is not fitting."


I love Nick's the reference to Proverbs 19:10 in particular. That along with meditations in Galatians is a good defense against the slavery that Mark Driscoll pushes. Nick's input and perspective helps me to understand better, why I'm so distraught over what Driscoll teaches. Driscoll waves a carrot of "freedom" in front of young men, giving them permission to drink, cuss, get tattoos, and have limitless, pornographic sex with their wives, then clamps down on them with his real agenda motivated by his own need for popularity and worldly success.
Thanks, Nick, for sharing your thoughts. I feel I have a better grip on what is going on when we compare notes like this.

Scottish Calvinist Takes a Swipe at NeoPatriarchs...

... who dare to call themselves Reformed. This Scottish Calvinist has a bone to pick with them. He (or she) doesn't appreciate these New Calvinists and Neo Patriarchs sullying the word "Reformed" with their aberrant doctrines. So listen up, you New (kids on the block) Calvinists (iow -- wet behind the ears and too immature to know how ignorant you really are concerning reformed doctrine midgets), this Scottish dude (or dudette) from the UK has a thing or two to teach you. And you better listen because he (or she) has more wisdom in one little post than anything and everything any one of you have ever written on the topic.

in the community

Always Remember the Victim

Abuse comes. As Christians, we cannot prevent it. But our response as Christians, can make all the difference in the world.

John Piper's response to tragedy is, in itself, tragic. All he can point to is that God rules and we drool. I can't argue with this fact. But his message is of no use to anyone. He could take a lesson from Wade Burleson who wrote a compassionate, open letter on his blog to a little girl who was sexually exploited by a man in Christian leadership.

Here is a link to what this letter has meant to the family of the abused little girl:
Tom White, Abuse, VOM, and the Power of the Internet

John Piper, if you are listening, and I'm sure you aren't but I have to say this anyway, please learn a lesson from Wade Burleson. You should be able to learn from him. He's a man and he's even a Calvinist. Please take note of what to do in crisis because you have shown so far that you have no clue.

Lynne Explains TULIP

Lynne from Australia left comments on The Wartburg Watch concerning Calvinism that I want to preserve here for myself and whatever posterity that is interested in it.
She starts off by responding to Jedidiah who asked about what reformed doctrine was:

"Jedidiah, like most code words, “Reformed Theology” has a special meaning. (Otherwise it would just be protestant theology, since all forms of Protestantism have their roots in the Reformation. No, Reformed in these circles refers specifically to Calvinism, and fairly “high” Calvinism at that, i.e. a form of Calvinism that puts a strong emphasis on God’s sovereignty as His most important attribute (as a non-Calvinist I would say it was His love). It is very important to them that nothing in any way should limit God’s absolute rule, so they believe strongly in predestination and that salvation is 100% of God and 0% of man’s free will. Hence the acronym TULIP commonly used to summarise this position:

T–total depravity (man in his wickedness cannot save himself
U — unconditional election (God chooses who He wants to save on a completely arbitrary basis)
L — limited atonement (Jesus only died for the ones that God has chosen to be saved)
I — irresistible grace (when God chooses to save you, you’re saved — you have no power to refuse
P — perseverance of the saints (you can’t be un-saved, once you’re in you’re in)

hope that helps, I’ve tried to be fair,"

Then later she talks about her history with Calvinism:

"I spent 20 years in a Calvinist church (Presbyterian Church of Australia) Mostly I encountered ‘soft’ Calvinists, who were very nuanced in their application of these principles. The internet Calvinistas tend to be a different breed — much fiercer and less nuanced, and much more likely to take the sovereignty of God all the way to a reductio ad absurdum (i.e. take the trajectory as far as they can push it, no matter how silly their end point is. Very sad.Soft Calvinists tend to be human and compassionate, hard Calvinists are very scary.

Having said all this, the point where I finally broke with Calvinism was when I went to the funeral of a new born baby, and the whole sermon was on the perfection of God’s ways, without a word of comfort for the grieving parents. That, for me, was the beginning of a massive rethink, and basically turning away from over-systematised theology."

I like her views and her insight. And I think that I'm also repelled by the "over-systematised" aspect of Calvinism theology.

Calvinist Taking Over SBC?

SBC Pastor, William F. Harrel thinks so.

Things That Bear Watching

At this writing, there are over 150 comments under his post.

Driscoll's NC Position=Unconditional Acceptance?

Concerning the ongoing drama of Driscoll speaking at Liberty University, a Southern Baptist pastor asks:

But, why does Mark Driscoll seem to get a pass, particularly on issues which non-conservative pastors would most certainly not be allowed to skate by? One answer might be because of his Reformed/Calvinistic theology. I don’t know how many times I have read something along the lines of, “Well, I don’t agree with everything that Pastor Mark preaches, but he preaches the Gospel.” That in itself gives me pause to question what they mean by “Gospel.” I didn’t realize that preaching the “Gospel” automatically exempted leaders from the Biblical standard of “being above reproach,” including with those outside the church. As one who is an inconsistent Calvinist in my theology, surely we can find better Reformed role models for students in our colleges, universities, and seminaries to emulate than Mark Driscoll.

Hhmmm. You would think.

To read the rest of what Howard Scott has to say about the Driscoll Machine go to:

Mark Driscoll's Mesmerizing Hold on LU and Evangelicalism

Calvinism, Useful Tool for Making Jerks?

Hey, I didn't say it. Kevin DeYoung did. He actually makes some good points and I don't have it out for him. Just let me quote something from his post linked here:

Does New Calvinism Make People Jerks?

"Calvinism is a way of thinking. It's a worldview. It's a doctrinal system. It demands thought and intellectual rigor. It must be learned. It is a minority position in America and in the American church. None of this make the Calvinist a nasty person. But if you have a predilection toward nastiness, then developing an intellectually sophisticated set of beliefs that you understand and most people do not will help you immensely in your feelings of superiority and expressions of condescension."

Whether or not traditional Calvinism makes people jerks or not is not for me to say. Anyone pushing a complicated set of doctrines thinking that what they have is the truth and what all others have is a lie even if all those others profess Jesus, well it makes me very wary.

As Paul point out in his New Calvinism For Dummies pt 6, when major leaders like Tim Challies claim that what New Calvinist have it wheat while all others have chaff, well, that's pretty arrogant. It is easy to see why some New Calvinists fall into elitism which flows nicely into Phariseeism. I'm not saying that is happening to all New Calvinist. But I am saying that I've seen some really jerky, Pharisaical New Calvinists roaming the blogsphere. Just saying.

Interesting Converstaion on NC at NLQ

I'll repeat the title without the abbreviations. There is an interesting conversation concering New Calvinism over at the No Longer Quivering forum. Those who are following along with me as I crack the NC code might be interested in it.

NLQ, Paul's intro

New Calvinism and the Permitted Tattoo, er Taboo

Back to New Calvinism for a bit.

Wanatchee the Hatchet made a post some time back on the allure of NC to young men that I think was very good. And when WTH talks about NC I perk up because I know that he spent time in NC shoes in Mark Driscoll's church. His post helps me understand "why" which is just about as important as "what".

Neo-Calvinism, Young Men, and the Appeal of the permitted Taboo

So there you have it.

"There is a darkness to Calvinism"?

Lin left a comment under one of my posts and I'm wishing she has said more.

Lin: " There is a darkness to Calvinism that is inexplicable. I saw it in reading about Calvin and others. I could discuss what I saw for days on end. It is chilling. Now, I am running into people who were totally immersed in it a few years back that are now athiests! "

I really think she means New Calvinists, because of these statements:

"I highly recommend George Marsden's bio of Edwards"

And:

"Marsden records the suicides that occured with Edward's Awakening and they are bizarre."

But I'd really like for her to clarify things herself.

I only ask because I see New Calvinism as a very troubling force in Christianity. And I see New Calvinism creeping into my own church. If there really is a darkness about it, I want to understand it and combat it, somehow.

The New Calvinist & Neo Patriarch on Divorce

Paul pointed out a post he had on New Calvinism and Divorce:

Gospel Driven Divorce

So I thought I'd put up a link to a comment thread concerning Neo Patriarchs' view on how to get rid of a rebellious wife. (This is old news to my long time readers since I have linked this here before.)

How to get rid of a rebellious wife... Patriarchal style

This thread has had over 4 thousand hits and is still getting them even though discussion ended in August of 2010.

Yep, both Patriarchy and New Calvinism are bad for marriage and men and women. Patriarchy is especially bad for women.

WTH on Suffering and New Calvinism

I wanted to add this into the mix before I move on to my own thoughts on suffering.

WTH emailed me his thoughts and apologized that he couldn't do/say more since he's up to his ears in another project.

He said:

"Monergistic soteriology isn't a uniquely Calvinist view as Lutherans also hold to it. Even branches of Christianity with utterly synergistic ideas about soteriology embrace the idea that Christian life will inevitably involve suffering (such as ascetism in Eastern Orthodoxy, which teaches that it is possible to be completely sinless at least in short spurts).

Attempts to define New Calvinism with respect to suffering are missing the forest for a few trees. It still gets back to Edwardsian micromanaging sovereignty, which not all Calvinists affirm. Orthodox Presbyterians I've met have explained that more traditional Reformed thought insists on monergistic soteriology ONLY for salvation itself, not at every point of Christian experience. God can choose to fix certain things and not others. That's about all i'm up to describing at this point."

One of the reasons that I bring up what he says is that when Paul explained how New Calvinists weren't motivated to help an abused woman very quickly because suffering was good, I went to look up Hinduism, Calcutta, and Mother Teresa. I had heard that the Hindus just sort of allowed suffering because of the Karma thing (as I mentioned in a previous post) but that Mother Teresa, motivated by Christian charity and what not, went to Calcutta to minister to the sick and dying. Well, I learned something in my research. I learned that Mother Teresa is also a bit guilty of this monergistic soteriology, at least according to some critics. In her ministries, although she honored the suffering and dying, her ministry didn't go to great lengths to alleviate suffering because she also thought that suffering was a good thing.

So when WTH gave me this info the other day, I knew what he was talking about.

However...

As Paul has noted and others have attested to, New Calvinism has a harsh, withdrawn (from the human condition) side that makes this human tendency... how should we say it? Meaner?

At least this is what I get from it.

Anyone else have anything thoughts?